The cost of building a two-kilowatt system is disputed. Environment California says it would cost $10,000 and because of tax incentives and savings on monthly power bills, the net cost would be next to nothing for the homeowner. Advocates say it is important to equip homes with solar systems at the time they are built because it is more expensive to do so afterwards.
I am all for solar power, wind power, geothermal power, tidal power, bio-mass electric generation plants, cow milking machines that are ran on methane which comes from the own cows decomposing poop., and ethanol.
I don't really care about the environment, because eventually we will have the technology to fix it if we want to. I concentrate more on the national security issues. Total energy independence would remove the need to care what happens to the middle east, allow us to export that technology to other countries for a profit, increase our ability to push reforms in the middle ease, and a host of other benefits with very little drawbacks.
But you have to be able to afford the technology, before real people will get it. Real people have to get the technology before it will make a difference.
It seems to me that if it were feasible to use house to generate their own power, a company could pay people to put these things on their houses, and they would get so much per watt. Then the company could sell the power at a slightly higher price to the power company, once the cost of the PV cells, taxes, payments to the people who own the houses, and so forth were done, a person could pocket some money.
That is a great idea, think that if you are reading this, you should copy it down, work out a business model and do it.